On 2017-05-03 03:05 PM (-4), Dave Blandston wrote:
> Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>> That's a matter of perspective.  As a black American, I cannot look at
>> "wholesome" '50s images without being reminded of the hidden ugly
>> reality behind them.
>
> This may be a new topic,

So you have written it, so it is done.

> but if you accept the argument that Stefan Molyneux
> makes in the You Tube video called "American Violence: The Future of a
> Catastrophe," there's still an ugly reality regarding racism directed toward
> black Americans.

Ya think?  Those who claim that America has solved its racial problems 
aren't the ones who have to deal with it.

We've come a long way, and we have a long way to go.  The recent 
incident at a baseball game in Boston shows both sides of contemporary USA.

Post a reply to this message

On 2017-05-04 01:50 PM (-4), Stephen wrote:
> In Kingston, no one mentioned the name but after I showed my power
> (don't ask but if I were a woman I would have been a spaewife, it is a
> long story) lots of people spoke to me.

Jamaicans are still falling for that kind of trick?  Columbus got the 
indigenous Jamaicans (Tainos) to enslave themselves to him after he told 
them that his God was angry with them and would make the Sun disappear. 
Then the Sun disappeared.  The Tainos surrendered to Columbus, and 
Columbus called on Yahweh and/or Jesus to bring the Sun back, and the 
Sun came back.

It's too bad for history that Columbus hadn't sailed a few centuries 
earlier and met the Mayans instead of the Tainos.  They would have 
responded, "Yes, Señor Colón, we know there's a solar eclipse tomorrow."

Post a reply to this message

On 5/4/2017 9:46 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> On 2017-05-04 01:50 PM (-4), Stephen wrote:
>> In Kingston, no one mentioned the name but after I showed my power
>> (don't ask but if I were a woman I would have been a spaewife, it is a
>> long story) lots of people spoke to me.
>
> Jamaicans are still falling for that kind of trick?  Columbus got the
> indigenous Jamaicans (Tainos) to enslave themselves to him after he told
> them that his God was angry with them and would make the Sun disappear.
> Then the Sun disappeared.  The Tainos surrendered to Columbus, and
> Columbus called on Yahweh and/or Jesus to bring the Sun back, and the
> Sun came back.
>

That story has been repeated so many time in fiction I had forgotten the 
origin. I thought it was the conquistadores and the Aztecs.
It's not fair to criticise the Jamaicans for believing in something 
other than/as well as, the major religions. It is the same the world 
over. A lot of people want there to be something more than what there 
is. My grandmother a firm C of E believer, had trigger thumb for years. 
Until she went to a Billy Graham meeting. Where she was cured, 
instantly. ^ ^


> It's too bad for history that Columbus hadn't sailed a few centuries
> earlier and met the Mayans instead of the Tainos.  They would have
> responded, "Yes, Señor Colón, we know there's a solar eclipse tomorrow."
>

Going by the actions of the Europeans at the time. The response would 
have been.
Bang! ;)

I've worked abroad a lot. And it is often an embarrassment to be British 
because of our colonial past.

-- 

Regards
    Oga Stephen (Oyibo)

Post a reply to this message

On 2017-05-05 06:02 AM (-4), Stephen wrote:
> It's not fair to criticise the Jamaicans for believing in something
> other than/as well as, the major religions.

Credits:  This image was accompanied with a Creative Commons Attribution 
Non-Commercial notice, but there was no attribution.  Tineye.com got me 
hundreds of matches, the oldest of which was a Spanish language 
Jehovah's Witnesses site that no longer exists.  If the copyright holder 
happens across this, I'll be happy to correct the omission.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'gallery_146_6_32006.jpg' (47 KB)

Preview of image 'gallery_146_6_32006.jpg'

On 5/6/2017 5:19 AM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> On 2017-05-05 06:02 AM (-4), Stephen wrote:
>> It's not fair to criticise the Jamaicans for believing in something
>> other than/as well as, the major religions.
>
> Credits:  This image was accompanied with a Creative Commons Attribution
> Non-Commercial notice, but there was no attribution.  Tineye.com got me
> hundreds of matches, the oldest of which was a Spanish language
> Jehovah's Witnesses site that no longer exists.  If the copyright holder
> happens across this, I'll be happy to correct the omission.
>
>
I think you are safe. It is fair usage.
Funnily enough I had the exact same thought last night.
The way my Thunderbird's windows are set up. I could only see the top 
cartoon. It made me wonder what was coming. :)

I've had a lot of stick in the past about British colonialism.*

The best being, when I was working in Nigeria for Total.
"I'm glad we were colonised by the English not the French."
Quite a few layers of meaning, there. :)

* It shows I'm approachable. :)
For a non academic or interest group, I know a bit about the slave 
trade. I've worked at the three points of the slave triangle.
So I've laid myself open to it. :)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 2017-05-06 06:04 AM (-4), Stephen wrote:
> The best being, when I was working in Nigeria for Total.
> "I'm glad we were colonised by the English not the French."
> Quite a few layers of meaning, there. :)

This reminds me of what I was told about Botswana while I was visiting 
South Africa.  During the 19th century, King Khama III of Botawana saw 
all the territory around him being taken by Cecil Rhodes, and he did not 
like what he was seeing.  So he appealed directly to the British crown 
to become a British protectorate.  (Wikipedia tells a different story, 
but the gist is the same.)  The strategy seems to have worked, as 
Botswana has avoided the strife that plagued much of southern Africa 
during the 20th century.

To complete the irony, after the conclusion of its savage civil war, 
Mozambique, which had never been a British colony, joined the British 
Commonwealth!

We in the U.S. Virgin Islands just celebrated the 100th anniversary of 
the sale of the Danish West Indies to the USA.  Barely asked among the 
"important" people was the obvious question: why is being a colony of 
the USA cause for celebration over being a colony of Denmark?

One possible answer would be constitutional protections--except that 
such protections don't automatically apply to the territories.  While 
the U.S. Constitution mandates republican governments for the states, 
territorial sovereignty is granted directly to Congress, and application 
constitutional rights is determined by court cases, most importantly the 
Insular Cases.  Our democratic institutions in the islands and our very 
USA citizenship are at the mercy of Congress (regardless of what 
comforting lies Puerto Rican politicians tell themselves).

Then there is the little fact that many USAmericans do not want to face: 
  that, in general, the Danish are happier and live better than 
Americans do.  Oh yeah, and the Virgin Islands have totally fallen 
through the considerable cracks in the Affordable Care Act (not that I 
want it repealed or anything).

One constitutional protection that recently seems to have put us in a 
better position is equal protection under law prescribed by the 14th 
Amendment.  In 2015, our local judiciary agreed that Obergefell v. 
Hodges applied to the Virgin Islands, thus legalizing gay marriage here. 
  In Greenland and the Faroe Islands, the issue was devolved, meaning 
that if we were still under Danish rule, the issue would have been left 
to our homophobic legislature.  It is not lost on me that in this one 
case, colonialism resulted in greater rights for us.

Yet that very issue is still being debated in American Samoa, the one 
territory whose residents Congress has not seen fit to grant USA 
citizenship.

Post a reply to this message

On 5/6/2017 11:58 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> On 2017-05-06 06:04 AM (-4), Stephen wrote:
>> The best being, when I was working in Nigeria for Total.
>> "I'm glad we were colonised by the English not the French."
>> Quite a few layers of meaning, there. :)
>
> This reminds me of what I was told about Botswana while I was visiting
> South Africa.  During the 19th century, King Khama III of Botawana saw
> all the territory around him being taken by Cecil Rhodes, and he did not
> like what he was seeing.  So he appealed directly to the British crown
> to become a British protectorate.  (Wikipedia tells a different story,
> but the gist is the same.)  The strategy seems to have worked, as
> Botswana has avoided the strife that plagued much of southern Africa
> during the 20th century.
>

I've heard that story. It was in the form of a parable.
"How the Plover bird hid from the hawk in the mouth of the crocodile."

Which reminds me. If you have not read them, try and get a copy of 
Alexander McCall Smith's "The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency".
It is set in Botswana and McCall Smith is obviously in love with the 
people.
He has an unique stile, strangely uplifting.


> To complete the irony, after the conclusion of its savage civil war,
> Mozambique, which had never been a British colony, joined the British
> Commonwealth!

It's funny that when you look at a map at that area. Zimbabwe is not in 
the Commonwealth of Nations. ;)
(Just getting a dig into Mugabe and the ZANU party. :) )

>
> We in the U.S. Virgin Islands just celebrated the 100th anniversary of
> the sale of the Danish West Indies to the USA.  Barely asked among the
> "important" people was the obvious question: why is being a colony of
> the USA cause for celebration over being a colony of Denmark?
>

The literal answer is because you are Americans. But I know what you mean.
Actually my personal opinion is that you would have been better off with 
the Danes. I worked on a Danish Oil Exploration rig for about six 
months. I really liked the people I met there. Importantly their sense 
of humour is similar to ours. But on the other hand. Could you trust 
them to keep you? The gave away the Shetland Islands to the King of 
Scotland (No, not Idi Amin) Because the then King of Denmark was too 
poor to buy his sister a weeding present.


> One possible answer would be constitutional protections--except that
> such protections don't automatically apply to the territories.  While
> the U.S. Constitution mandates republican governments for the states,
> territorial sovereignty is granted directly to Congress, and application
> constitutional rights is determined by court cases, most importantly the
> Insular Cases.  Our democratic institutions in the islands and our very
> USA citizenship are at the mercy of Congress (regardless of what
> comforting lies Puerto Rican politicians tell themselves).
>

It is good to hear these opinions. It explains things from a grass roots 
view.


> Then there is the little fact that many USAmericans do not want to face:
>   that, in general, the Danish are happier and live better than
> Americans do.  Oh yeah, and the Virgin Islands have totally fallen
> through the considerable cracks in the Affordable Care Act (not that I
> want it repealed or anything).
>

No, no. I understand that. ;)

> One constitutional protection that recently seems to have put us in a
> better position is equal protection under law prescribed by the 14th
> Amendment.  In 2015, our local judiciary agreed that Obergefell v.
> Hodges applied to the Virgin Islands, thus legalizing gay marriage here.
>   In Greenland and the Faroe Islands, the issue was devolved, meaning
> that if we were still under Danish rule, the issue would have been left
> to our homophobic legislature.  It is not lost on me that in this one
> case, colonialism resulted in greater rights for us.
>

Sorry, lost me a bit there. Whose legislature. the US government's or 
your island's?

I was taken aback when I found out how much homophobia was rife in Jamaica.

> Yet that very issue is still being debated in American Samoa, the one
> territory whose residents Congress has not seen fit to grant USA
> citizenship.
>

Did you know that the Isle of Man, one of the British Isles, is not part 
of either the UK or the Republic of Ireland? It is a Crown Dependency. 
They do okay out of it. Low tax and the TT races. :)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 5/7/2017 8:29 AM, Stephen wrote:
> He has an unique stile, strangely uplifting

He may have but I meant style.

If you like him. You could go onto "44 Scotland Street". The same thing 
but set in Edinburgh. So it is a follow on from the cartoon you posted.


He's not for everyone, mind.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 2017-05-07 03:29 AM (-4), Stephen wrote:
> On 5/6/2017 11:58 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>> We in the U.S. Virgin Islands just celebrated the 100th anniversary of
>> the sale of the Danish West Indies to the USA.  Barely asked among the
>> "important" people was the obvious question: why is being a colony of
>> the USA cause for celebration over being a colony of Denmark?
>>
>
> The literal answer is because you are Americans. But I know what you mean.
> Actually my personal opinion is that you would have been better off with
> the Danes. I worked on a Danish Oil Exploration rig for about six
> months. I really liked the people I met there. Importantly their sense
> of humour is similar to ours. But on the other hand. Could you trust
> them to keep you? The gave away the Shetland Islands to the King of
> Scotland (No, not Idi Amin) Because the then King of Denmark was too
> poor to buy his sister a weeding present.

Good point.  I am a diehard republican (with a small 'r'); I do not 
understand how one person deserves sovereignty over an entire nation 
just because they emerged from some special vagina.  A constitutional 
monarchy such as Denmark would be tolerable, though; possibly more 
tolerable than a de jure republic whose sovereignty has been usurped by 
a small class of people just because they have more money.

I assume you mean "wedding" present.  When people complain about us 
redefining marriage or protest that the government should get out of the 
marriage business and leave it to the churches, I remind them that 
marriage started out as a contract for exchange of merchandise, namely 
the bride.  Payment could be in the form of such things as, say, the 
Shetland Islands.

>> One constitutional protection that recently seems to have put us in a
>> better position is equal protection under law prescribed by the 14th
>> Amendment.  In 2015, our local judiciary agreed that Obergefell v.
>> Hodges applied to the Virgin Islands, thus legalizing gay marriage here.
>>   In Greenland and the Faroe Islands, the issue was devolved, meaning
>> that if we were still under Danish rule, the issue would have been left
>> to our homophobic legislature.  It is not lost on me that in this one
>> case, colonialism resulted in greater rights for us.
>>
>
> Sorry, lost me a bit there. Whose legislature. the US government's or
> your island's?

My islands'; if we were still under Danish rule, the U.S. government's 
currently homophobic legislature would be irrelevant.

Nevertheless, I sense that the people here are far less homophobic than 
the legislature.  The homophobes are just louder and have the churches 
on their side, and in the Americas, few politicians want to cross the 
churches.

> I was taken aback when I found out how much homophobia was rife in Jamaica.

It's all over the region.  The only islands in the region with any LGBTQ 
rights at all are those still subject to outside powers.  The former 
British colonies are the worst, with gay sex punishable with lengthy 
prison terms or even commitment in a psychiatric institution.

Post a reply to this message

On 5/7/2017 4:29 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> On 2017-05-07 03:29 AM (-4), Stephen wrote:
>> On 5/6/2017 11:58 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>> We in the U.S. Virgin Islands just celebrated the 100th anniversary of
>>> the sale of the Danish West Indies to the USA.  Barely asked among the
>>> "important" people was the obvious question: why is being a colony of
>>> the USA cause for celebration over being a colony of Denmark?
>>>
>>
>> The literal answer is because you are Americans. But I know what you
>> mean.
>> Actually my personal opinion is that you would have been better off with
>> the Danes. I worked on a Danish Oil Exploration rig for about six
>> months. I really liked the people I met there. Importantly their sense
>> of humour is similar to ours. But on the other hand. Could you trust
>> them to keep you? The gave away the Shetland Islands to the King of
>> Scotland (No, not Idi Amin) Because the then King of Denmark was too
>> poor to buy his sister a weeding present.
>
> Good point.  I am a diehard republican (with a small 'r'); I do not
> understand how one person deserves sovereignty over an entire nation
> just because they emerged from some special vagina.  A constitutional
> monarchy such as Denmark would be tolerable, though; possibly more
> tolerable than a de jure republic whose sovereignty has been usurped by
> a small class of people just because they have more money.
>
> I assume you mean "wedding" present.  When people complain about us
> redefining marriage or protest that the government should get out of the
> marriage business and leave it to the churches, I remind them that
> marriage started out as a contract for exchange of merchandise, namely
> the bride.  Payment could be in the form of such things as, say, the
> Shetland Islands.
>
>>> One constitutional protection that recently seems to have put us in a
>>> better position is equal protection under law prescribed by the 14th
>>> Amendment.  In 2015, our local judiciary agreed that Obergefell v.
>>> Hodges applied to the Virgin Islands, thus legalizing gay marriage here.
>>>   In Greenland and the Faroe Islands, the issue was devolved, meaning
>>> that if we were still under Danish rule, the issue would have been left
>>> to our homophobic legislature.  It is not lost on me that in this one
>>> case, colonialism resulted in greater rights for us.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, lost me a bit there. Whose legislature. the US government's or
>> your island's?
>
> My islands'; if we were still under Danish rule, the U.S. government's
> currently homophobic legislature would be irrelevant.
>

That's what I thought.

> Nevertheless, I sense that the people here are far less homophobic than
> the legislature.  The homophobes are just louder and have the churches
> on their side, and in the Americas, few politicians want to cross the
> churches.
>

I have noticed. Here the press go to town when one of the C of E bishops 
criticises a government policy or make a controversial comment. On the 
other hand we have an openly gay C of E priest broadcasting on the BBC 
Radio 4 (mostly middle class).


>> I was taken aback when I found out how much homophobia was rife in
>> Jamaica.
>
> It's all over the region.  The only islands in the region with any LGBTQ
> rights at all are those still subject to outside powers.  The former
> British colonies are the worst, with gay sex punishable with lengthy
> prison terms or even commitment in a psychiatric institution.
>

I have noticed that. Just look at Africa. There is always an ongoing 
argument between countries that have different attitudes to LGBT issues. 
That's what we hear in the Commonwealth and Church politics, news.
I wonder why our lot are so bad.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message